cowcake

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

The venerable Stephen Hawking has decided to weigh-in [geddit] on the subject du nos jours.

Witness agog,

Stephen Hawking-Bigotry can dim brilliance

At the moment humanity faces a major challenge. And millions of lives are in danger.....I am here to address one of the most serious public health problems of the 21st Century.

Really? I'm sure scientists are working night and day to come up with the most efficient and effective solution to avert this crisis... no?

As a cosmologist, I see the world as a whole.

I'm sure you also view the human body in the same holistic way. How does the body create itsown mass? Why would a person withdraw fuel, rather than adjust mechanics that exist to be adjusted?

Today too many people die from complications related to "overweight" and 'obesity'.

That would make even more of an incentive to find the most effective and efficient means of manipulating the function that creates and regulates body mass. I'm sure "obesity science" is desperately at it right now.

We eat too much and move too little. Fortunately the solution is simple....

Hey, anyone can fast/ starve or run around as they wish or are able, but real control of weight, requirespushing at the frontiers of current knowledge. I'm sure that's what's happening as we speak.

....more physical and a change in diet.

Yep, he said that, more physical activity. It gets better/worse though;

For what its worth, how being sedentary has become a major health problem is beyond my understanding.

I actually laughed out loud at that point.

It could be seen in two ways, the first is obvious, the other as an ironic statement-if read literally-on his own condition.

Not only does he have some form of motor neurone disease, he counts as "sedentary," because that's measured as people who do not exercise. 'Obesity' wallahs exclude work and physical circumstances be damned. Ableist and classist, amongst other things.

He's also not exactly packing timber himself, so him claiming without irony, that the "answer" is to get off your arse feels like a spoof. This signals the real echo chamber that is 'obesity' it is imposed on others and has little to do with reality.

This shows us again that anyone who accepts 'obesity' is a thing, dies a death of the mind. I've said this times without number-it is a concept that is incompatible with rational thought.

If you want to avoid looking like a tool, abolish 'obesity' from your vocab. I think I've been very nice in giving folks the heads up on that one. But if they wish to keep showing themselves up, that's on them.

You'd think given that he is an actual physics master, that he could see through this at some point, but he either doesn't, or is feeling the "noble lie" horseshit authority tells itself. This is for youth, so it's mis-using authority to hoodwink them.

The real lesson for them to learn is-apart from SCIENCE WORKS dieting doesn't- it doesn't matter how much brilliance you have, you still have to apply it. You still have to exercise judgement. Plus it requires humility enough not to be convinced by the notion that other people are really are too stupid to grasp ELMM.

This is the privilege of being fat. Seeing the limits of human intelligence and character exposed before your eyes. I'd have to be far cleverer than I am to see this. Ironically, Hawking is supposed to have the kind of brain power that has left him in the position often in his life.

Not this time. This time he's been suckered.

From someone who has for so long defied medical prediction and platitude to fail this test is perhaps more forgivable than many.

Monday, 21 November 2016

I wonder what you make of the increasing and crude use made of fat people's self acceptance to shield thin bodies or anorexic people from attention that's coming from either other thin people and/or slim people. First an example of attention given to slim bodies.

The whole point of "body positive" was that it about any bodies targeted for negative attention, for example disabled bodies. It exists precisely to de-centre fat activism. What for instance is "plus-size"? It's plus Jacqueline Hooten, Bella Hadid size, is what it is. The play on innocence also attempts to hide slim people's aggression towards thin bodies by cynically invoking the old stereotype that fat women are inherently jealous of thin/ner women.

Let's go back in time

Back to western teens sprouted in the post WW2 era. In their youth, women like Twiggy expressed the physical ideal for many of that generation. Many sought to be that size, regardless. This proved to be a historical turning point in the western body aesthetic, one that's continued more or less to the present day. In spite of an increasing challenge from the failed "weight management" strategy.

A couple of decades or so ago, anorexic activists-white coat professionals/academics, people who had previously had anorexia/ currently had it-often these overlapped -decided anorexics needed to be saved from anorexia via the public's personal intervention.

It was made to seem obvious when a person had this condition. Emphasis was made of what appears to be a determined refusal of an anorexic to accept they have the condition-when it has got a hold of them. These activists trained real reticence out of people, insisting they bore a burden of responsibility if they didn't confront anorexics vigorously-to save their lives. Anorexia then was defined and diagnosed by low-weight.

This automatically made any woman who looked like they might be wasting from a target. I only found out through the fatsphere that many who had anorexia weren't thin. This was often and still is rejected by many who insist you can only be anorexic if you are of low weight regardless of your behaviour or even symptoms.

No doubt the fact that proto-anorexia is the prescription -now to be enforced by whipping your stomach out-for 'obesity' is part of that reluctance.

Though official channels have shifted diagnostic criteria away from weight, the damage was done. Later on, slim women began to seize the opportunity to hide their long gestated resentment of thinness behind a veneer of amateur diagnosis. This is the source of a lot of the heat thin bodies get. A lot of slim women feel so close to being thin and have often tried to be but haven't managed it.

Maybe there's a sense that if thin women are pressured to gain weight and become at least slim that will make slim women feel better about not being more twig(gy) , Naomi, Kate, Lupita, Bella or whomever -like. Like vanity sizing, its hard to see how much of the impetus for this can come from jealous fat women, given it wouldn't make much difference whether a person is thin or slim.

I'm not saying fat women never stray into in this nonsense. It's still policy of many official/medical agencies to blame anorexia on thin bodies. Most fat people still have a conditioned and unquestioned belief that whatever slim women say is the rules of how to be. Whatever slim women say, is what's to be said. If slim women, shout at thin bodies, that's what you're supposed to do.

I've already busted those using anorexia to confidently attack thin bodies, I know that hasn't been ignored, yet the main, driving force behind this has.

Slim women need to learn to deal with mea culpa and re-think their attitudes without continually dragging fat women into things that are little to nothing to do with us.

Plus size models like Ashley Graham and Tess Holliday are credited for empowering a new generation of women to embrace their curves whilst challenging the notion of an ‘ideal body’. But somewhere along the way thin women have become the enemy and that’s not okay

If I was either of those two, I'd not take kindly to any suggestion that I was in some way responsible for the cynical and brazen attacks on thin people's bodies. And what about this,

In September, The Women’s Equality Party launched the “No Size
Fits All Campaign” aimed at tackling the fashion industry’s influence on
body image. The campaign calls for a change in the law to ban fashion
models with a BMI below 18.5. While the campaign’s aims appear laudable,
by failing to define an upper BMI limit the WEP are effectively looking
to legalise the demonisation of “thin”.

WTH, "failing to define an upper BMI limit"? Wow, if these women can't see a bus to throw fat women under, they go to the bus garage. There is no equivalence between someone wasting away from anorexia, effectively dying from starvation and/or someone being forced to starve so they can work and someone who's merely fat, however fat.

Anorexia starts with wilful actions that are able, in a minority of people, to outstrip the natural in-built defences our bodies have against anorexia nervosa. It's not so much about weight as its about an unusual reaction to the stimulus of self-inflicted starvation.

The problem here is with the diagnostic attitude the women's equality party has picked up, and its inability to distinguish between the merely thin and those who are actually anorexic. Those involved in that field also need to say more about this sort of thing or they may find that the mis-use of fat people will give everybody more problems than they bargained for.

I don't mindlessly fall in line with anorexia activists when they are bullshitting. Conflating fat bodies with anorexic bodies is really not a good move. When it comes to advancing the cause of their own self-denuded sense of superiority, fat phobes rarely put anyones health first.

Friday, 4 November 2016

Continuing on from yesterday's post and the noteworthy attempt of 'obesity' promoters to decry any possibility of blocking a cell that has already been blocked. Looking back at research indicating the maturation process of our fat handbag adipose cells, can be stimulated to completion by a hormone called Adamts1.

Sentiments expressed by Dr. Brian Feldman-part of the research team concerned-about the purported implausibility of slowing fatty tissue genesis was backed up and emphasised by an NHS website,

The coverage by the Mail Online was generally accurate, highlighting the
important fact that this research has not necessarily identified a
target for anti-obesity treatment options.

"The important fact" eh? Why would that be either? Important to whom? It's not even about expectation management. If you say, eventually it seems like they'll be a means of stopping adipose tissue from increasing, you can go on to say, but not for a while yet if you want.

It's the enthusiasm for shutting that avenue down that is a red light.

If one steps back from puberty, it could be seen purely as an increase body mass. In healthy cells; bone, muscle and FAT [etc.,]. By dint of that, blocking or slowing puberty effectively does the same for adipose as part of that repression,

Initiating the treatment early for a child who experiences gender dysphoria has greatest effect; the body of the patient is less developed and later, the need for surgery such as mastectomy or “reduction thyroid chondroplasty and voice modification therapy” is avoided.

Avoid
mastectomy? Okay, this is the brotherhood of wikistan, I haven't looked
further into it yet, still, I think we can confidently state the human breast has fatty tissue.

Puberty blockers supposedly work by suppressing the release of chemicals that launch the process of puberty into effect. They are released from the pituitary gland. Incidentally, one of these hormones is called "follicle-stimulating hormone" or (FSH), yes, that relates to the troublesome, poly-cystic ovary, follicles. This could go to explain why PCOS can now seemingly be diagnosed without the presence of challenging follicles.

I'm not here to recommend nor decry puberty-blocking, initially a treatment for precocious puberty. This is really about being told what isn't supposed to be possible or likely, when it has already happened however imperfectly.

Even if it hadn't, it would hardly be an outlandish possibility to be able to modify the extent/speed of one cells proliferation, given the body already does this. If you've ever dieted for any period, you'll know that it can speed up your body's capacity to gain weight like no-ones business. How can that happen if gain is all one speed?

And where you can slow, you can look to stop, or at least slow even further. So if any 'obesity' wallahs are struggling with this concept, why don't they mosey on over to those working in the area of arresting puberty and ask them for a clue?

It slightly recalls the suggestion that "weight loss" is supposed to be hard, when the body already goes down (and up) in weight, daily, with consummate ease. One might humbly imagine attempts to figure out the ways it manages this impossibility/immorality/unlifestyle generated action. Only for that also to be mysterious improbable.

As I've repeatedly stressed (oops), "obesity science" doesn't actually have to reverse weight. It can merely settle for subduing replication of cells. The spluttering response...

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the
body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more
detrimental to metabolism.

...when confronted with this notion fails to grasp-stopping a person's weight/fat mass where it is. Which is the norm for most people fat to thin alike, it's homoeostasis, all you're doing is seeking to help that along. When it comes to blocking fat, of course we are talking about the activity that promotes its genesis /proliferation.

We are talking here about outliers who are enduring aggressive symptoms that include/lead to swift unending gain.

And blocking or suppressing adipose cells can equally have an affect on other metabolic features including hunger and appetite. Because fat cells are "metabolically active" sending as well as receiving messages.

You may be asking why in the midst of a supposed adipocalypse of urgent proportions, is there this continual urge to deny possibility of the obvious target to save us from this impending hellacious fate? In favour of such cutting the sugar in soft drinks.....no less....

Thursday, 3 November 2016

I happened to be reading "Why stress can make you overweight" because I'm a glutton for punish... oh look, I've finally faced the truth, now I can take action against the terrible addiction to what humans cannot live without...

The article is about stress triggering release of a hormone called Adamts1, I don't know why that sounds cute to me. Apparently, this chemical is contained within fatty tissue sites and has the power to influence stem cells contained within- to become* new fat cells.

Now you may have noticed certain researchers are going around telling everyone within earshot that they now know fat cells aren't just handbags to keep your spare junk in, oh no, they're cells that interact with the brain, nervous system and metabolic function,

It was once believed that fat cells were just passive bags of calories, but recent research shows they send and receive important hormonal signals.

Note the phrasing "It was once believed..." More like assumed. It was once assumed, by scientists and researchers [they're the "it" bit], that fat cells were greedy and lazy, did nothing, because they were fat cells. I was even told this myself by a certain person on this site,

A lot of FA people seem to express they believe their fat is just there,
a blob sitting on their body without consequence. This couldn't be
further from the truth. Fat is metabolically active. It alters hormone
levels, releases inflammatory cytokines, disrupts leptin signalling. The
more fat you have, the more hormonal imbalance and inflammation, and
the more likely to have diabetes, insulin resistance, and heart disease
(from inflammation).

I parked my suspicions there, though the scent of bull was on this. Fat people having embraced the notion that our bodies are whole not slim + and act in concert were ahead of a lot of these researchers. When this happens and your tormentors straw version of you allows no honour, they just lecture you with their new found sense of reality, as if you were insisting on the fibs they strenously advocate.

Any fat person who believed/s in the handbag cell would have got it from 'obesity' constructivism, same as the assumption that weight loss and CRIWL are one and the same. Anyway, I assumed the attempt expressed here to represent the fat cell as if it was some kind of rogue cell had enabled 'obesity' wallahs to finally let go of their silly emotional dependence on adipose handbags. Subsequently, it is clear that they haven't managed this at all, still, because of this Adamts1, I thought this might have been a new dawn for at least the duration of this article,

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more detrimental to metabolism.

Back to fat handbags again!!!!

That's not the half of what makes this shocking. Not only is has the research concerned already suggested you can block the formation of the fat cell by being less stressed. Formation of the fat cell has already been blocked and is out there.

* Correction: according to NHS Choices, "they had already started to become fat cells and the hormone [Adamts1] finished the maturation process."

Monday, 31 October 2016

If you're overseas you may not know UK TV station Channel4 still thinks it has a bit of a reputation for edgy forward thinking television-out of the other big 5 terrestrial channels. Despite this, the furrow it ploughs with fatsploitation is brain dead standard issue at its most banal.

As with a lot of middle class metropolitan types, station honchos are on board with 'obesity' construct agit-prop. Tonight they're airing an episode of their long running 'Dispatches' series called "The Secret Plan to Save Fat Britain".

Indeed.

That could be read with an unfortunate-for them-literalism, as an assessment of the last 40 years of 'obesity' campaigning. To not only save fat people from not exiting fatness, but to add to and ballast their number. Think about it, if fat people had succeeded in their plans to 'lose weight' all these decades (centuries), this wouldn't be a thing.

The calorie restriction model has saved fatness from extinction-against the will of fat people themselves.

This grand stratagem is driven by increasing the encroachment of the organising principle of our era-lifestyle anorexia. Stuff like making restaurants include calorie counts on their menus, stopping supermarkets from offering certain promotion deals, getting them to remove sweets from checkout areas, reducing advertising an marketing calorie dense foods and other measures to reduce intake.

Anything but the most obvious and scientific, which would be to give people the ability to lower their hunger. And no, that doesn't require drugs, just more experimentation with using our thought processes to affect our function. An area of human capacity that's sorely underdeveloped.

It needs to happen for those who have an excess of hunger function. Contrary to assertion, its relatively rare, so people do not get how disturbing it is- including fat activists and some who claim to have something called-binge eating disorder. I'm not talking about binge eating, I'm talking about excessive hunger.

After finding efficient ways to bring this about, that can be applied to normal hunger. Whether that's a good idea or not I'll leave up to the individual, but that would be the best, easiest, healthiest way to reduce intake. However, this reducing of hunger, leaves control of what you eat with the individual, clearly that's an important target for those who feel everyone else's hunger/appetite is an extension of their own.

And should therefore be under their diktat.

The programme implies it will dig deep to uncover food industry machinations to expel policies from the lifestyle disorder manifesto. I'd be amazed if they hadn't lobbied their cause. Having been used to fat people the "obesity community" are struggling to deal with their own levels of cynicism and intransigence.

Its amusing to see the mainstream media-often bellyaching about social media's encroachment on the news agenda and how its a disaster not to leave the news agenda to metropolitan know-it-all classes.....- bending this into a conspiracyesque form.

The intimation is fat phobes would be "do something" about 'obese' if it wasn't for those pesky industrial food varmits and their underhand nefarious tactics.

In truth, this whole shebang depends on the inherent dysfunction of the calorie restriction model. The upshot of that being a success would decimate industrial food as we know it. Along with that, a lot of the transfer of employment from the heavy industries of yore.

Even this far into that process that bottom line hasn't slimmed down. Indeed, it would reverse what is keeping many millions going financially. Whether you insist fat ='overeat' or no more than anybody else, the permanent state of semi-starvation required by this method, would strike a massive blow to the food economy. Not to mention the cultural impact of a quarter, more or less of the adult population in a permanent state of hanger.

This doesn't tend to come up in these discussions. Instead you get repetition of the have cake and eat it too fantasy. Food needs to be restricted for the 'irresponsible' people who can't control themselves, but not for those who can.

It's been pointed out that if the latter are so sparing in their intake of popular calorie dense foods- they'd hardly miss them-especially given their massive self control.

The calorie restriction model is especially unsuited for liberal capitalist society. The nature of it requires a dictatorship like control/mismanagement of the food environment. Its invasive outer dictation, need to interfere with commerce and to dismantle a lot of what provide incomes for those who'd otherwise struggle gaining employment pits it against forces societies want to beat it. The almost complete lack of real opposition means no one has to face up to this. The failure of restriction is an integral part of sustaining most people's 'obesity' crusade delusions.

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

Whilst trawling for something else, I landed on a blog representing a notion that epitomises the divide between the fat standard and what the mainstream applies to itself.

This blog was going on about how set point theory was ultimately condescending and infantilizing to, in this case, women. Keeping them from taking responsibility for their weight (and this was part of why fat acceptance was losing its way).

Another one of her posts spoke about a certain neurotic condition, in the usual way, as if it was an illness.

That represents nervous imbalance as a set point. And that looks exactly as condescending, infantilizing, shifty and vanity serving as you think acknowledging CRIWL is not the right way to achieve weight loss does.

In case of any need of a reminder, as CRIWL is the only route to weight loss. Most people will have to accept the size they are.

If that's confusing, I'm saying that the idea that an imbalanced nervous system is some kind of an illness is in the main, vanity serving drivel. Remember, one of the chiefest foes of dealing with neurosis=vanity.

Yes, there are a minority of people who have functional disorders of some kind, that make them more likely to become mentally unbalanced in this way. Either in terms of the formation of their nervous system, or their organs.

Mainstream therapy culture has advancing this comforting gesture of a set point, for decades. Therapy's efficacy is, shall we say, someone moot [tact-c'est moi; today]. Ergo, someone has to explain why, someone goes into therapy, on the premise that they have an issue, therapy is supposed to solve this. It how shall we say, doesn't. How to explain that?

Therapy doesn't work?

The decision was made to define neurosis as something that is like an infectious disease. Things like depression etc., can make you feel very unwell, they can actually make you sick, but they aren't like illnesses. They aren't a set point, they're more a settled point.

It's often strange when others see in fat people how they themselves act all the time, but don't seem to notice, or remark on. Probably as they know they'd be challenged.

If anything, it was this attitude that was belatedly applied to fatness-which is why its named and why its so contested. Fat people are not subject to the rules applied to others. Whereas those rare people who have a neurosis based on internal fillips become the template for anyone diagnosed with that condition, no matter how far away they are from there.

Fat people are defined by people who are ill and fat, and they're defined as people who would be well, if they weren't fat.

And before those who are fat and neurotic and think this is an outrage get excited, you have already accepted what I'm saying, you just don't apply it to your neuroses-same as everyone else. Anyone accepting the notion that weight or health can be controlled by changing your thinking, eating and activity has accepted the idea that a settled point is not a set point. That your neurosis is open ended and can change in an instant and/or remain for a lifetime. Potentially by your own actions.

The biggest noise made about neuroses is not; just calm down is wrong, its that just calming down is real hard when your nerves are in that state. You do actually have to calm down, cheer up, stop checking, etc.,

You can be fat to thin for anything from a lifetime to a short or no time. Ditto your nervous/mental state. You've all already accepted this, via the fat standard.

I've just caught up with an attempt by certain outfits to construct another fatty reparations model.The inversion being fat people will end up paying to be discriminated against-discrimination is robbery- as usual. Few pay more for being than fat people. We've paid and continue to pay; mentally, psychologically, physically, financially, healthwise, socially, in terms of quality of our relationships, and with our own self esteem and so on and so on. We've enriched liars and grifters at every level of society, professional and charity, governmental and private sector to degrade, butcher, mutilate and starve and run us ragged, only then to be blamed for the failure of the noose around our necks.

That's not enough though, now we have the prospect of being traded as a sort of loss commodity through a proposed system of rating companies by certain purported health measures, majoring in BMI measurements. Specifically, how many employees are in the "at risk" category, given the agit-prop produced by "obesity researchers" associating fat/ter people with lowered productivity.

The consistency and unchallenged nature of this wretched cult and its complete failure of a strategy- CRIWL means increasing the avenues to monetise discrimination. A huffpo article states this move by the "wellness industry"-yet another industry created off our backs- taxes business but that will be passed on to fat people, it already has.

You get robbed, then you get taxed for being robbed because everyone supports the construct making this possible,

Always accidental isn't it? In fact it is the 'obesity' construct which put not only a target but imprisons people in discrimination-full stop. I'm sure you can tell from the "dealing with obesity" where that's coming from. Those who also support the construct causing these problems. It's a tribute to the barely challenged nature of 'obese' that you can present yourself as on the side of fat people, whilst upholding the basis used to royally fleece them.

Furthermore, if you're interested, this target is being painted on all our backs using this as the entry wound. Those fat people who claim to adore slimz need to start thinking very carefully about allowing themselves to be an instrument in their downfall,

[The]....federal government is already taking the first step towards endorsing
this Fat Tax by allowing companies to require employees to hand over
genetic information as part of wellness programs.

When I first got into the fatsphere, I made the observation that 'obesity' was a threat to all our civil liberties. Increasingly that poison is spreading. All fat people need to start taking this into account. It's not simply about you anymore. Similarly for slim people who feel immune to the discrimination they're supporting for others, its going to bite your acceptable behind too.